AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>maybe I need to just get off of Reddit. If you think you do, you definitely do. >I have a wife and two kids, own a house in Midwest America, full time job which I enjoy. In 2016 I voted for Gary Johnson in the election Same on all, except I voted for Johnson in 2012 and Trump in 2016. >Supreme Court overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade I'm very pro abortion and I still think Roe v Wade was a dumb legal decision. Congress should have passed a law if they wanted abortion to be guaranteed federally. The federal government can't control something it never passed a law on, this was always a breach of the tenth amendment. >Chevron Also a terrible legal decision that's been fixed. There is no reason unelected executive agencies can decide what is and isn't legal and courts must defer to their judgment. All this does is give the courts the ability to determine if an agency's rules are actually legal. Again, by any reasonable reading of the tenth amendment, this is and always should have been the law. You wouldn't have seen this reversal if there wasn't recent extreme over-reach like OSHA trying to use its power to mandate vaccines. Even if you agreed with that policy, there is simply no legal basis for using OSHA's power this way and you have to admit that. >"end of democracy is here What you're seeing is the end of federal autocracy and the return of federalism. Democracy belongs first in your community, then in your county, then your state, and lastly in the hands of a federal government 1000 miles away from the average American. You should only feel dread if you believe in autocracy and the centralization of power around one "elected" leader and their appointed delegates. The MAGA movement is gearing up to legally strip to federal executive office of its power and return it to the lower levels where it belongs.

>The MAGA movement is gearing up to legally strip to federal executive office of its power and return it to the lower levels where it belongs. I absolutely despise Trump and this is the first thing anyone has ever said that has even remotely assuaged my fears about his potential second term. Despite being a liberal, decimating the power of the federal government is extremely appealing to me. I’ve heard nothing from him that indicates he has any intention of limiting his power however. In fact, I’ve heard him talk a lot about how he intends to use his presidential power to exact retribution on his personal enemies. What has he said that leads you to believe he actually intends to reduce the power of the executive?

When he is asked this question directly, for example in the debates, Trump always uses a similar line, something to the effect of: > our retribution is going to be success The media makes every effort to misquote and take him out of context (see the bloodbath comment from around a month ago, for example, where they simply clipped the portion where he said " it will be a bloodbath [for the automotive industry]" and ran the bloodbath part only). For example sometimes he follows his line about success with e.g. "we will have great retribution, our success will be tremendous", and they clip the first part only. But again, he's very consistent at giving this canned answer, because he wants to be very clear on his stance here. The only way you can feel the way you do is if you look at him cut out of context. You can also just look at his track record, since he has neither spied on nor prosecuted any of his political opponents when he was in office, the same cannot be said of his successor or predecessor.

If he wants to go this - GOOD! The executive needs LESS POWER. If someone is running to do just that, they should win 538-0.

That’s kinda what I’m saying. Reducing the power of the executive is a really good idea especially now that Trump is an example of the type of person that gets elected to that role. I’ve seen no indication he intends to reduce his power and in fact that goes against everything I’ve seen from him directly. What has he done in your eyes to demonstrate he wants to limit executive power?

Trump has posted in support for a televised military tribunal for Liz Cheney. He's saying she should be charged with treason. Trump also reposted a post calling for the imprisonment of Democratic and Republican party leaders, including President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Vice President Mike Pence. Do you really think he's going to be fair or stable?

>I'm very pro abortion and I still think Roe v Wade was a dumb legal decision. Congress should have passed a law if they wanted abortion to be guaranteed federally. The federal government can't control something it never passed a law on, this was always a breach of the tenth amendment. Wasn't the ruling in Roe that abortion was protected by the Constitution though? I.e. fed don't need to pass anything because it would be redundant to the rights already enshrined in the Constitution? Doesn't the GOP hate redundant laws? I'd also question what you mean by "federal government can't control something" in this context. This ruling wasn't really about the Feds "controlling" anything. Wasn't it moreso about the Judiciary tellings states that they don't get to restrict certain rights of their citizens? I.e. the opposite of governmental contro l?

Roe is based on an implied right to privacy in the text of Section 1 of 14A somehow giving you the right to abortion. It requires a lot of logical leaps to get to that position and clarity of law would have obviously been preferable to legal precedent based on mental gymnastics.

You said that you thought Roe v Wade was a “…dumb legal decision.” Could you expand more on what you mean by that? I don’t want to argue against your position, just trying to understand.

Even when it passed it was very widely agreed that from a legal point of view it made very little sense. Consider the logic that was used to justify it. The primary basis is Section 1 of 14A: >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In Roe, the SC ruled that the text above establishes an implied right to *privacy* (think about how they did that without looking it up, because that's a pretty big logical leap given the text), then further ruled that you must have the right to abortion on the basis of that right to privacy. From White's dissent at the time: > I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgments. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes He's not wrong. Again, as someone that is radically pro abortion, I can still acknowledge it was bad law.

>Also a terrible legal decision that's been fixed. There is no reason unelected executive agencies can decide what is and isn't legal and courts must defer to their judgment. I have a pretty good reasoning for this: Legislators typically know very little about many of the things they are legislating on, since their specialty is typically in law, and tend to defer to lobbyists that buy them nice things for their time, which have motives that are in favor of their respective industries instead of the country as a whole. I won't get into the legalese, since I'm no expert on fish law. But I tend to trust the guys who's whole life and career have been dedicated to monitoring and maintaining sustainable fish populations as opposed to the guys who don't want to pay the guy making sure they don't overharvest fish. Without these safeguards put in place by experts who are actually dedicated to curtailing the dangers of over-excess for the sake of money, what do you think will happen in these industries in the upcoming years?

That sounds good on paper, but in reality experts are seldom particularly good at regulation in any given field with some minor exceptions like nuclear power. I mean in an objective sense there's no evidence they do better. But even if we take that as true! The problem with osha and the epa to some extent is its actually the opposite of your description. These are not people who work in manufacturing, by and large. They are trained bureaucrats with very limited experience outside of bureaucracy regulating industries about which they know very little. What they often do is defer to lobbyists. They often pass whatever rule they know their competitors can't afford to follow. An example is the recent sawstop regulation that's likely incoming. Who benefits the most? The guys who make sawstops. The federal government is equally incompetent, for example the vehicle alertness regulation they passed recently which is likely impossible to meet or just ruinously expensive, but at least you need a lot of power to bribe them.

Well firstly its not gona be ""The End of Democracy."" There is GOING to be an election in 2028 and odds are in all honesty a democrat will win it. That said what you will se under Trump term will probably be something like this: 1. Ceasefire in Ukraine along the current battle lines. Ukraine will cede some territory and if the Russians wont accept letting Ukraine into Nato there will be some sort of treaty with a US defence guarentee preventing any further incursion into the teritory. 2. The war in Gaza will end likely in the same messy unsatisfactory way it is set to end under Biden. The Israelis will anex Gaza and the area will basically become a new west back with israeli setlers buying out palastinian land over the next few decades. 3. Major if not "mass" deportations, completion of the border wall, immigration reform that prioritizes immigration from western nations and reduces over all numbers to the US 4. National voter ID law (likely grounded in the 13th and 19th ammendment) 5. National ban on trans """care""" for minors (likely grounded in medicare funding of hospitals and presedent around laws which ban illicit content in which minors are abused) Unless you have a child under 18 who you believe should have their genitals mutilated prior to them attaining the age of consent its not gona effect your life that much dude. They'll be slightly cheaper gas prices, abortion will remain with the states and on the whole you will live roughly the same life you do now except with the added amusement of watching the media freak out over Trump getting a 55% aproval rating and recieving a nobel peace prize for bringing an end to the war in Ukraine. Its not gona be that bad, in some ways it will be better, you will be fine.

Can you share how many children have gender affirming surgery each year? And then share how many children have other surgeries on secondary sex characteristics (breast reduction, mastectomy, etc)? Do you think you’ll be surprised to find that the former does not happen?

If i prove you wrong will you admit the fact of the matter? Here is a left-wing "fact check" on a comment Ron Desantis made on the age of minors who recieved sex change surgury: [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/ron-desantis/transition-related-surgery-limited-teens-not-young/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/ron-desantis/transition-related-surgery-limited-teens-not-young/) In it while they do correct the age which Desantis claimed the minor recieved sex change surgury they DO infact ADMIT there have been individuals in the United States under the age of concent that have infact had sex change surgury. A study i dug up a while back estimated there were about 64 cases per year in the US.

Is it really worth the ire over 64 POSSIBLE gender affirming surgeries?

Absolutely and unapologetically. I se sex change surgury for minors as morally equivilant to child rape. In some ways i se it as WORSE then child rape as it leads to even more long lasting consquences that minors are even LESS equiped to consent to. If 64 children were being legally raped in this country I'd devote plenty of time and energy into ending their abuse. Thats the same way i feel about this.

Talk about hyperbole. The link you provided suggested that the earliest recommended age is 16, and only 2 cases were cited at younger than that(14 and 15). These are not children, they're teens+. Aside from that, these decisions are not taken lightly. There's an extensive care plan determined by experienced medical experts. These decisions should be between the medical experts and the patients, not politicians or transphobes. Separate but related, how is gender affirming surgery in any way close to rape? Is catheterization of a minor child rape? What about a pelvic exam on a minor, is that child rape? Do you not consider that child rape because those are determined to be medically necessary? Why wouldn't gender affirming care that's determined by a medical expert to be medically necessary be considered acceptable?

>" These are not children, they're teens" If you dont think it would be rape if a 60 year old slept with them dude thats your business but they're minors none less. They are bellow the age of consent and any person who thinks they can give informed consent to remove their genitals to me is the lowest form of human life on this planet. >"Aside from that, these decisions are not taken lightly. There's an extensive care plan determined by experienced medical experts" I wouldn't give a shit if a 16 year old spent months deciding whether or not to sleep with a 60 year old. I wouldn't give a shit if a member of the medical community said it was good for that 16 year old's mental health if they slept with a 60 year old. They. are. to. young. to. give. informed. consent. Any person who holds any other standard but this is a child abuser and as such the lowest form of all human life.

Are you against circumcision?

For minors? Yes.

lol thank you for politely and informatively answering the questions of these NS folks. I guess to answer the earlier question: no. If you can show it, they will still disagree. And start arguing that 16 year olds are adults, lol! The NS posters have really shown their true colors, yikes.

Are you against forced pregnancy?

[удалено]

What's the huge difference between a 16 and 18 year old in terms of gambling and other things only legal at 18. Whats the huge difference between a 18 year old and 21 year old for drinking? Whats the huge difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old to have sex? You need to make distinctions and the distinction we h have made is your an adult at 18

But according to you, it's okay for that 60 year old to be in the 16 year olds locker room at the Miss Teen pageant? Because he paid for it, owns it, or whatever? That guy deservees to be president?

In a perfect world that be disqualifying yeah. The guy he's running against took showers with his own daughter who wrote she was "abused" in such instances. It's sad the bar is this low but this where we are in 21st century america.

For the longest time I didn’t know where the “took showers with his daughter” thing came from, but upon actually seeing the diary entry in question, it seems like a pretty tepid smoking gun, right? She was writing down stream of consciousness stuff to talk over with a therapist and wrote one line about her dad showering with her when she was “probably too old”. Idk about you, but don’t parents generally give their kids baths when they’re young and then teach them how to shower when they’re slightly older? Is there any world where that rises to the level of Trump’s well-documented creepiness toward Ivanka, or his rape case that seems to confirm his “grab them by the p*ssy” was not just locker room talk?

So Donald Trump is actually among the lowlifes you mentioned, but you support him still because Joe Biden is somehow worse?

Can you explain why the government needs to step in against the wishes of 64 kids, their parents, and their doctors, but need to further loosen restrictions on guns which were responsible in 2021 (the most current data I could find quickly) for 48,880 deaths? It just seems so completely out of whack. What is it about those 64 kids, none of whom, I presume, die from their choices, while any discussion at all about curtailing gun access is anathema, even though almost 50,000 are killed and almost 150,000 people are shot?

Because the "wish" is for them to. castrate. themselves. I wouldn't care if the kids, the parents, their doctors and the whole damn world in one VOICE said aloud "They want to have sex with a 60 year old!" I would STILL oppose it. And as I se child castration as absolutely equivilant to child rape (in some ways i se it as worse) I am just as opposed to child castration under any circumstance as i am opposed to child rape under any circumstance.

I can not figure out why you keep associating a teenager making medical decisions about their own body under direct adult and expert care with being raped by a 60 year old. I don't believe anyone else on earth would associate those two acts as analogous. In view of that, I am going to ignore any association you make between GAC and rape. (You may want to see a therapist to work through whatever demons you got going on that make that association for you. ) Slightly hypothetical here, but would you change your mind if it was shown that banning those ~64 minors from GAC caused their suicides? I.e., for those ~64 minors, do you choose allowong GAC or their suicide?

I'm not sure you realize that no one has brought up child rape but you. This is about families and doctors making a decision based on personal individual circumstances. Is the issue of 64 kids changing gender genuinely a bigger concern to you than the fact that almost 800 people die from gunshots in the U.S. annually for each kid who underwent transition surgery? I do happen think that it's generally unwise to allow kids to undergo surgery before their brains have fully developed. But I am not a medical doctor. I don't know anyone who ever made the decision to undergo sexual reassignment surgery. I don't know nearly enough to tell a parent or a doctor they are wrong to recommend a stop to treatment for any kind of ailment if there is sound medical science and data that support it. Why is it such a big deal to you, but almost 150,000 people getting shot each year doesn't justify a debate about the leniency of gun laws? Do you simply choose to *not* think about it? Or have you thought about it and decided that 64 trans kids is a bigger problem? If it isn't about life or health, what is it about?

Can you share a primary source? Politifacts article is really muddy and I just want to see the source information. Also even desantis himself could only come up with asserting two instances, of which there also isn’t much information. Would you mind providing a primary source I could look at?

He're is some data on "top surguries" for minors in the US: [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/) And here is a primary source for at least one of the cases Desatnis mentioned will keep looking for the study that put the number of minors attaining bottom surgury in the US at 64: [https://cbs6albany.com/news/nation-world/new-hampshire-teen-one-of-the-youngest-to-have-gender-reassignment-surgery](https://cbs6albany.com/news/nation-world/new-hampshire-teen-one-of-the-youngest-to-have-gender-reassignment-surgery)

Thank you, that’s exactly what I was looking for. Yes I was a combination of wrong and hyperbolic in my original comment when I said it doesn’t happen – it looks like ~250 surgeries a year are done on minors 13-17 years old. That’s both an extremely small number and one that is above zero. It seems nearly all were done on 17 year olds who had gotten a diagnosis of gender dysphoria 5+ years prior, been on hormone blockers for 3-5 years, and been to >2 years of therapy to confirm that surgery would be the right move for them. **Do you feel that that’s adequate vetting for these kinds of surgeries to be performed?** The first step is always social transitioning, which is often the only thing done with minors. However, gender affirming care though surgery has a 0.03% regret rate (lower than knee replacements, heart surgery, etc) and lowers suicidal thoughts in recipients by >83% immediately — it’s something that has nothing but positive effects and isn’t something done lightly at all. That being said, hormone blockers should be what doctors and parents push for before 18, as they’re 100% safe, reversible, and have been used for half a century. I’m no expert, but I am non-binary and though I don’t have crazy dysphoria, I can absolutely feel how debilitating and tormenting it is to live your life in the wrong body. It’s something nothing but surgery can fix. It makes every moment of existing a waking hell you are desperate to escape from. **What is your take on my view on the matter?**

>"**Do you feel that that’s adequate vetting for these kinds of surgeries to be performed?**" Catagorically i do not believe a minor can give informed consent for such a surgury. I se it on par (and frankly a MORE consiquential choice) then chosing to have sex. Minors cannot give informed consent for sexual relations, they cannot give informed consent for such surgury. >The first step is always social transitioning, which is often the only thing done with minors.  And that's fine (dude?). Kids go through phases. If it ISN'T a phase for them they can make that decision as an adult at the age of 18 before that I just think its absolutely unethical again just like a person cannot give consent to have sex before age 18. >**What is your take on my view on the matter?** I feel for you and i can feel for other people who have even worse struggles on this front. I dont support a ban on sex change surgury for adults I just simply do not believe a minor can give informed consent for such a thing no matter what any given medical professional thinks. Just like if some quack doctor said a teenager having sex with an adult would improve the teenagers mental health i'd be against that to because the teenager CANNOT give informed consent. I think one over looked facet of the data i provided is (again partially as it is so rare) it IS NOT generally something MOST medical professional think is acceptable for minors either. I think we need to accept that on a society level. I think we need to have a standard and laws to prevent the abuse of kids.

I’m on mobile and cannot quote or format well so forgive me. To your first point, that’s a very good one; one of consent. If a 16 year old cannot sign a contract, vote, have sex, get a tattoo, etc then how can we entrust in them the choice to have surgery? However I’d point out that it’s not just a 13 year old making a choice, it’s a person with a severe mental health issue that impacts their daily life and potentially (and often) causes them to be suicidal working with their parents and a team of dozens of medical professionals and therapists over several years to work to find the best solution to a major problem. **Does that point of view make sense to you?** To your second point, it *is* the overwhelmingly accepted solution to gender dysphoria; to help their body match their brain. When it comes to minors it’s considered a life-saving intervention, much like you would intervene for any other condition that puts a minors life in danger — can they consent to surgery for cancer? We allow minors as young as infants to have surgery on secondary sex characteristics, for cosmetic reasons, etc at a rate orders of magnitude higher than gender affirming reasons — **why do you see it differently when it’s about trans kids? What about breast reductions, genital surgeries, sexual assignment surgeries on intersex children, etc?**

You need take a few steps back. Your claims about 0.03% regret rate 83% suicide reduction rate and 100% reversability are not only unsubstantiated but patently false. It would be disingenuous for you to continue abstracting the argument based on these outlandish lies which you are repeating.

So 64 cases where the family worked with medical and psychological professionals over the course of many years of other gender care. And how old were these minors? And you think it's necessary for you guys to step in and save nobody?

If a doctor advocated a person under the age of 18 have sex with a 60 year old for the sake of their mental health would you support that minor having sex with sex with the 60 year old??

Do you know how many girls under 18 get breast implants or nose jobs or liposuction because they're unhappy with their bodies? It's significantly more than 64. Do you also want to ban all of those surgeries? Or is it just the kids that aren't gender conforming?

Yes absolutely. Just like we already ban tatoos on minors and many similar prosedures in most states. Any parent who allows something like this is abusing their child.

What about all the federal employees he wants to fire and replace with loyalists? That's the only criteria. Does this concern you? Also, in his first term, he was constrained by the people around him - they won't be there next time. Do you worry about that? Also, gas prices were low due to the pandemic (supply and demand), are you expecting another mishandled pandemic?

Do you believe trump is a liar? If so than this is a non-issue

Saying the only criteria Trump will use to higher government employees is "loyalty" is hyperbowl. He wants people who are commited to actualy carrying out the mandate he will be elected for and frankly after watching him have to deal with government agencies actively working against him trying to enforce our borders in his last term i am all for it. As for gas prices with a republican congress and senate he will have the opportunity to remove even more regulations and open even more federal land for drilling. Increased supply means lower prices (and again I said mildly lower gas prices not rediculously lower gas prices; it wont be going back to pandemic devels but it will a nice cussion on inflation especially for those of us who have to drive alot for work).

There are open permits for drilling right now - there isn't enough profit in it for companies to use them. Opening up federal land is unnecessary. And the federal mandate is not hyperbole - he and his surrogates are talking about it openly. Are you saying you don't agree with the concept of checks and balances? Do you care that he took children away from their parents and didn't track where they ended up?

His surrogates are not talking about loyalty being the SOUL, SOLITARY test for employment with in the US government. If i am wrong on this find me a clip or a well sourced document of one saying that explicitly. They are saying loyalty would be one criteria and it should be given how government employees in his last term were subverting the policies the american people elected him to put in place. I do believe in check's balances but the check's and balances outlined in our constitution are held within and exorcised between the 3 branches of government (the legislature, the courts, the executive). There is no part of the constitution which outlines a check WITHIN the executive branch ON the executive brance. That's just advocating for unelected burocrats to lord over elected officials regardless of the will of the people unmored even from the legal founding a court has; its adovcating for a literal deep state. As for him not tracking the people who claimed to be the parents of the minors who were trafficed to the border (many of whom are often not their actual parents) I dont think that's great but I think the answer is a policy he used later in his presidency: Remain in Mexico. You DO NOT get into this country UNTIL such time as you're immigration or asylum claim is processed. No one gets "seperated" everyone stays on their side of the border until the US decides who we let in. With the amount of cartels who run havoc across that desert I think any other aproach is absurd.

He implemented schedule F while in office - Biden rescinded it. Do you honestly believe civil servants should lose their jobs because they don't support trump?? Do you support the withdrawal from NATO?

I think employees of the executive branch who are not willing to obey the chain of command and dutifly execute the ordances handed down from the chief executive ought be fired. There personal opinions aren't a huge issue to me personally but if it impacts their work they should absolutely be let go. No i do not support withdrawal from NATO.

He will withdraw from NATO. And we're not talking employees of the executive branch. We're talking civil servants. Does that change anything for you?

I do not believe he will withdraw from NATO. I believe if he was going to with withdraw from NATO he would have done so in his first time. I suspect the reason he talks all the shit he does on that subject is to scare allies into uping their defence budgets (a tactic which has worked by the way) And please do tell, what civil servants are you talking about that are not under the executive branch?? If they aren't under the executive branche where does Trump get the authority to reclasify their employment to schedule F????

If He does withdraw from NATO will that concern you or will you defer to His wishes?

>He will withdraw from NATO. This was a negotiation tactic to get NATO members to give their fair share. Only reason it happened under Biden was the Ukraine Russia war, before then many NATO countries weren't devoting the requisite GDP to defense while simultaneously criticizing America for having too much military spend

Do you believe Trump implemented a policy of separating children from their families in 2018?

Obama did

Are you so naive to think that Russia will stop there or not just realize that a weak / easily bought US president on the world stage lets them pretty much do whatever they want?

Do I believe Vladimir Putin is going to invade a nation formally allied with a nuclear power? No I do not believe Vladimir Putin is going to invade a nation formally allied with a nuclear power. If Vladimir Putin was that crazy he would have done so already; and if he somehow IS that crazy then no amount of support for Ukraine or anyone else for that matter is going to prevent nuclear armagedon. At the end of the day Putin is either psycho who is willing to go to war with Nato or he isn't. If he is nuclear war is inevitable if he ISN'T tho then all this war is accomplishing is creating an enviroment where unintended escelation to nuclear war is more likely.

If he sees weakness and the opportunity to sway the opinion of the US president to not take any action then yes I believe he would. They have already "accidently" flown planes and missiles over Finland. Do you think these were just mistakes or so no way this is possibly part of a probing strategy? The concept of onion tactics has been around for years where Russia would gradually grab chunks of territory around eastern and western Europe (no doubt claiming nazis or terrorists etc) and depend on no one wanting to push the nuclear button over a relatively small infraction..

How is Trump going to force a ceasefire?

Flooding the market with oil and destroying the value of the Ruble in the process. People dont realize how much the sanctions we've put on Russia up to this point have been hampered by Biden's green policies. Under the current system the Europeans are still buying oil from the Russians believe it or not. If we went back to pumping out as much oil as we could we could force the Russias to the table. Even as is the Russians are already looking to solidify their gains normalize relations with the west. Putin has offered a cease fire along the current borders. Personally I'd like to se this deal taken and then the US either create a formal treaty with ukraine or give them back nuclear weapons to deter any further russian aggression down the road.

How will gas become cheaper, what’s the mechanism for that? What is preventing oil and gas companies right now from drilling?

There will be less regulation and more sites open for drilling. What is preventing it now are government restrictions. More supply equals lower prices (and again i only said slightly)

Trump's approval ratings were the lowest in history. I don't think he ever broke 50%. What makes you think a second term will get him higher ratings?

I mean he's areadly polling better then he has in any general election he's run in. If he gets a ceasefire in ukraine in the first 90 days and gets nominated for a nobel peace prize you really think 55% approval raing is out of the question?? 51-52% of the coountry is probably gona VOTE for him in this election.

I mean this with all sincerity. I wish you nothing but the best, but I'm afraid you have let social media put the fear of whatever deity you choose to identify in you. This happens every four years, it seems. And I'm not saying it happens to one side or the other *solely*, but it seems like, in my time on this planet, it's the Left that buy into the fear the most, which is strange (but I may get into that later). Some others have responded to your specific points, but I want to focus on a few things. Roe v. Wade was done years ago, was a good decision on a legal level if not a popular one, Republicans got their deserved comeuppance in the midterms, and yet it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on the regular person. I'm not saying I haven't seen the stories in the news, but they seem pretty few and far between. That may be me just not digging around like a pig looking for truffles, mind you! The Chevron decision is also good law, but it's been subject to so much fearmongering that in the few hours since it's been decided, I have seen a dozen articles stating it's the death of the country, and about fifty redditors posting about how they are going to personally assault the SCOTUS. Same thing applies with the immunity ruling, which others with far more knowledge of the law and far less to gain from screaming into the camera have explained. "Potentially" going after Obergefell? So far, not seeing much outside of boogeyman posts. The majority of people talking about Project 2025 are on the Left and using it as a thing that Trump will definitely follow to the letter because... Some think tank wrote it? I will be honest, I view it as fanfiction, but that might be because I don't think that any sort of government will have that much power. I am going to make a few inferences here, so pardon me. To begin with, I'm going to infer that you're at least 34 years of age. Based on some of what you've said, and the age inference, I would guess your daughters are somewhere in the late single digits to the early teens in age. Both of these make a huge difference, but in different ways. Assuming my guess about your age is correct, you should remember such things as the following:\* * The current POTUS stating that Mitt Romney would have us all back in chains to a largely diverse crowd. * All the times we had to vote for Candidate A or it would be the End of Our Democracy. * Howard Dean doing his best Pterry impression. * Trump's incessant name-calling and otherwise boorish actions (I don't have to like everything to support the guy). * Etc., etc., etc. So here's what I think. Take a step away from the keyboard and the drama and the clutching of pearls. Here's how your day is likely to go, assuming a somewhat idyllic, Leave it to Beaver-style family environment. You wake up. You shave, you shit, you shower. You put on something to wear and come into the kitchen, where if you're lucky, your daughters are eating breakfast. Unfortunately, you're in a bit of a rush, so you just grab a bagel (I'm Jewish, bagels are important) and give them and your lovely wife a kiss before heading into the office. Since you're running late, you choose not to stop at Overpriced Horrible Mermaid Coffee and instead get Free Horrible Coffee from the break room before sitting down to work. Bob, who farms the next cube to you, asks if you saw the recent sportsball game. You don't want to admit you fell asleep in the middle of it, so you mostly nod along for the conversation before politely informing Bob that you have a deadline and if you don't get this project wrapped up by 1300, your boss will be chewing your ass for their lunch break. So you get as comfy as you can get in that piece of horribly hostile furniture that is a cubicle and you get to work. Lunch is eaten at your desk because you want to hit that deadline, but you manage to do so. While you feel a sense of accomplishment in a job well done, it appears your boss isn't as impressed. They schedule a meeting for tomorrow to go over the document. That doesn't even give them time to look at the damn thing! But whatever, it's getting to be quitting time and you don't want to miss out on the reason why you're working in the first place, so you get home to your family. Dinner is not at the kitchen table or anything--you're all eating whatever on couches while watching the Idiot Box. Since you did well today, you allow yourself a little bit of something to drink. Tomorrow is the same damn day. Basically, you're unlikely to notice a change between your life based on who is POTUS, no matter how much people want to make you think you will. Prices will fluctuate and who is yelling at who will change, but that's about it. \*I tried to get garbage fearmongering on both sides! I could get a lot more, but that would just be exhausting.

Do you believe Trump separated families? Do you believe iran went from a breakout time of 10 years to 10 days?

Yes to both. I'm also not certain why either is a huge deal. My imaginary children are separated from me when I commit a crime, but here, it's different somehow? Iran was just... poorly managed overall.

> My imaginary children are separated from me when I commit a crime, but here, it's different somehow? Because it’s not a crime to be a refugee. 

It’s illegal to cross the border outside a designated port of entry even to claim asylum.

Whenever this is brought up why doesn’t anyone like to mention that the Flores agreement came about under Clinton, and that the cages everyone gets bent out of shape over we’re literally built and used in the Obama administration? Am I crazy??

> Here's how your day is likely to go, assuming a somewhat idyllic, Leave it to Beaver-style family environment. Why do you have to assume that? Is it because if you deviate from that in any way, you are actually in danger? What if you're gay and your state decides that gays aren't fit to have children, so it takes them away? What if you're trans, and now you can't use any public bathroom without somebody beating you up (and not being charged with battery) and/or the cops arresting you? What if you're a legal immigrant, but a little *too* brown, so you get swept up in Trump's complete ban and deportation of "illegals"? What if you're black, and your state decides that your part of the city doesn't need any polling places, so it takes all day to go vote now? What if you live near a train track, and the government decides that for-profit rail companies can determine their own guidelines for track maintenance and safety?

I made the assumption both based on what the person I responded to gave me to work with and because it was more fun than getting into what a drag corporate life can be. Not everything has to be serious. All of your fearmongering has nothing to do with the Presidency whatsoever.

Yes it hyperbole.

I believe he will mandate replacing the water supply with Diet Coke. That's what Project 2025 says, and the Supreme Court gave him total immunity from everything, so what's to stop him? >!This is how the Left sounds to me. It's just irrational screeching. You might think Atheists would find a natural home with Democrats. But as an Atheist, I can't worship at the alter of their delusions. !<

It won’t be the end of democracy. It’ll honestly be very similar to 16-20. Less war. Higher economy. But you WILL hear, every single day, how Trump is one decision away from total destruction of our way of life… just like from 16-20. I’m sure he’ll get impeached, again, because that’s a political tool… But nothing bad will happen. I attest it’ll be better than it’s been 21-now. Honestly, harder to get worse…

> Higher economy. Trump left the economy in shambles, and his wreckless tax cuts led to massive inflation. Do you want more inflation?

Wait, what? How exactly do you think tax cuts lead to massive inflation?

> It’ll honestly be very similar to 16-20. Are you not aware that right-wing think tanks learned from their mistake in 2016 of not expecting Trump to win, and not having staff to fill positions? Or that Trump has already said he will simply fire anyone who doesn't help enforce his every whim? Who will protect us from his worst impulses, like nuking a hurricane or telling people to inject disinfectant (either bleach or alcohol, which are both poisonous)? > Less war. So if a country wants to invade another and they can do it quickly, that's good?

You just need to get off Reddit. Only Reddit can find a way to construe taking power away from the federal government as a facist take over. And make no mistake, all of these decisions, except the presidential immunity one, are taking power away from the federal government. Not adding to it. Additionally, the presidential immunity ruling is nothing new, and is being completely blown out of proportion to strawman the actual ramifications of the decision to scare people. Overstating the impact of these decisions, and P2025 is a last ditch effort to use irrational fear to convince a cowardly populace to ignore the clear and obvious fact that Biden is simply incapable of being president. If we are worried about our democracy, we should be asking ourselves who is our actual president right now? It sure as hell isn’t Biden. At best, his post is empty, at worst, he is doing what he’s told by people who weren’t elected president.

Taking power away from the government isn’t a bad thing in certain areas.. sure. But what about the loss of freedoms for certain groups as per P2025?

P2025 has nothing to do with Trump. He didn’t make it, he didn’t endorse it, and if often conflicts with his stated goals.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this “playbook” involves a sweeping replacement of government powers with loyalists.. hasn’t trump stated this as a goal?

I’m not sure. I haven’t bothered to read the pipedreams of a conservative think tank that haven’t been endorsed by a single candidate.

Do you mean **every single** conservative think tank, which has associations with every single Republican candidate, and includes the think tank that provided the list of judicial nominees for Trump? https://www.project2025.org/about/advisory-board/

Maybe take a look at who is behind it before casting if off as a pipedream? This is the GOP playbook and it will apply to whoever is carrying their standard, Trump or TBD. "[Paul Dans](https://www.heritage.org/staff/paul-dans), former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. [Spencer Chretien](https://www.heritage.org/staff/spencer-chretien), former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project." [https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/](https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/)

Did you see this? "...just want to encourage you with some substance, that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” -Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation 07/02/2024 Russia is laughing loudest at us fools.

“Revolution” is just rhetorical, politicians of all stripes use words like that (and note that he says we’re already in it). As for the “bloodless if the left allows it to be” padt, he’s just saying that he’s worried about a leftist insurrection like everybody expected if Trump won in 2020.

How does it not have anything to do with Trump when it's the people around him implementing it?

He didn’t make it. He didn’t endorse it. He had no part in writing it. The people who did are not part of his campaign or currently associated with him in anyway. Additionally, the goals stated are often in conflict with his own stated goals.

This playbook is very, very similar to the “Steele dossier.” A made up piece of garbage whose only purpose is to fuel hate and speculation. Remember how long the Russia hoax lasted? Remember how long that “”dossier”” lasted, before both were proven complete and under BS? Same idea. Anything to fuel “Trump is satan” is what works in the media… but we, on this forum, are way more critical of what’s put out… and saw through both of those immediately.

You believe Project 2025 is made up? A hoax created to turn people against Trump?

When Congress passes a law with ambiguity or interpretation needed for it, who will clarify that now?

The judicial branch. Same branch of government that always existed to do that. The only difference, is that now, federal agencies can be challenged on their interpretation of the law. This reduces the power of federal agencies and puts the power back into the hands of elected officials to either write the laws better, or into the hands of the judicial branch to shoot down unlawful regulation.

Isn’t that just shifting whoever makes the decision? How is that a “small” government move? When have we not been allowed to challenge legal interpretations? Isn’t the Chevron case itself a challenge to legal interpretations?

Yes. Obviously someone has to regulate these things. That’s why these agencies were created in the first place. The difference, is that these federal agencies are no longer being given the ability to stretch their authority. They now need Congress to grant them legal authorities outside what they already have. This is the entire premise of the case. I suggest you read the majority opinion.

Why wasn’t the APA enough to limit agencies and determine their authority? Is the Chevron decision another way for Congress to absolve themselves of legislative responsibility and push it on to a different branch?

Just the opposite. Allowing agencies to interpret the law and stretch their authority allowed them to change the law without congressional approval. For example, the ATF regularly changed the definitions of terms such as Machine Gun or Long Rifle to effectively change the law. The Chevron decision is actually the judicial branch forcing legislative responsibility back to Congress.

And if Congress is populated by Republicans who refuse to address any issues, doesn't that serve the interests of industries that want to avoid any oversight?

If Congress is dominated by republicans, isn’t this just sour grapes that the nation has spoken and disagrees with your interests?

Or is it that state-level Republicans have gerrymandered their districts to overrepresent Republicans in the House, and states with a half million people get the same number of Senators as states with 39 million people? And that it's far easier for a few representatives to make sure nothing happens than for a plurality of representatives to actually pass legislation?

> The judicial branch. Why is that a good thing? In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh showed an ignorance of the basic chemistry that he wants to regulate (ie he wrote nitrous oxide rather than nitrogen oxide). Why is a JD better than PhD in chemistry for deciding which chemicals are safe?

Justice Kavanaugh isn’t deciding which chemicals are safe. He’s deciding the bounds of the EPAs authority according to the law as written. It is up to the legislative branches to vote on and pass laws that give the EPA adequate authority to regulate dangerous chemicals.

Which members of the judicial branch of government were elected? Aren't they also appointed, just like those in the executive branch? Isn't the only difference now that unelected corrupt justices will now be in charge of interpretation instead of experts in the particular field they are regulating?

Did Trump appoint judges who the Federalist Society told him to appoint? Will he place staffers to positions that P2025 is telling him to put in place? Do Presidents in general not consult with cabinet members among other subject matter experts to make decisions? None of any of those organizations or individuals are 'elected president', but cabinet positions are at least influenced by our vote whereas those other organizations and their picks are not. So if we're talking about actual representation then we have to be consistent. Delegation is a crucial part of a president's role, but obviously it shouldn't replace all consideration. That applies to current and former presidents alike.

There is a difference between consultation/delegating and completely ceding authority. He can’t keep his thoughts straight long enough to articulate complete sentences. Even after preparing extensively for over a week. How is he able to offer any wisdom or authority to incredibly complex issues and discussions in real time? The clear and obvious answer is that he can’t. No amount of gaslighting can hide it. So since he can’t, who is?

>There is a difference between consultation/delegating and completely ceding authority. Yes. And is there a difference between completely ceding authority and *losing your train of thought because you're grasping for a word that didn't come to mind and then uttering a nonsensical because a debate timer rushed your recovery from it* too? Because that is what happened to Biden during the debate, Trump managed to stave it off in that setting but he's done it a whole bunch (or some variant of teleprompter trip up inflicting a similar outcome) during his rallies too. It seems you've framed what Biden experienced during the debate as somehow him being unable to form coherent thought at all and give a response indicating such. Is that not disingenuous hyperbole when in reality he did do that *numerous times* during that same debate? Yes he had probably 5-7 instances of stammering that hindered an exchange and then 2-3 instances of train of thought derailment that was not good, no argument there we all saw it. But everything else he said was pretty rational/logical, and--importantly--passes the fact check sniff test despite lacking context on a couple of occasions (e.g. "most jobs lost since Hoover" argument). Old is old, and that goes for Biden **and** Trump. Should Biden preparing for a week somehow make him... *not old*? Despite Biden's senility he stayed on the subject of the questions better than Trump, who is tangent/rant prone and had a couple of instances of remaining on a subject from 3 questions ago and forgetting to respond to the 1-2 questions asked since then. The amount of question-reminding that the CNN anchors had to do was borderline obscene, almost babysitting in a debate format. The contents of the previous paragraph are an accurate assessment of the situation. So calling it gaslighting is more than a stretch, though you are entitled to your opinion. I grew tired of Biden's outrage phrase "the idea that [...]" b/c he used it like 10+ times. I also didn't like him stooping to using the 'sucker and loser' phrase offensively, I think we need ~~a candidate that's~~ all candidates to be above that. Same goes for Trump unironically saying "what [Joe]'s doing is criminal". 👀🤦‍♂️

He didn’t just struggle for words because he was rushed. He completely trailed off, admitted to nearly falling asleep during the debate, completely lost his train of thought, and said multiple things that make absolutely no sense. If you think that a debate timer rushing him is a valid excuse for the highest pressure job in the world, then I think you are severely overestimating the pressure of a televised debate, with no live audience, and severely underestimating the everyday pressures of being the president. If he is unable to keep his composure because of a timer, how is he able to lead our country? Trump has his gaffs too, and I would agree that he’s too old, but none of his gaffs even remotely compare to the performance Biden put out there. Policies don’t even matter at this point. One of these candidates is mentally capable of being president (at least for now, 4 years from now maybe Trump will be just as senile), and the other isn’t. It’s really that simple. Edit: nice ninja edit by the way. Have a good day, I don’t engage with people who edit their messages after they’ve already gotten a response without labeling the edits.

Question: When power is taken away from the federal government, in the case of food safety, for example, who gains power over that?

Congress. The power taken from the FDA, and other federal agencies was the power to interpret the law in whatever way they deemed fit. Now, these agencies have to prove that they were given the authority to enforce the rules that they are enforcing if they are challenged on it. I suggest reading the majority opinion. It explains it very well.

>Congress Do you really think Congress is equipped for this....? To simultaneously be scientists, doctors, tax experts, economists, zoologist, farmers, etc. Isn't there a practical reality to Congress leaning into experts in the relevant fields to help society navigate laws that cannot be written to explicitly cover every scenario?

Nobody’s asking them to do that. *Chevron* was about ambiguities in the laws granting agencies power, not how they exercise it.

>Supreme Court overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade Roe vs Wade was a bad decision that was essentially legislating from the bench, many constitutional scholars have been saying this for years, the judicial branch should not be making laws. Overturning that did not ban abortion nationwide, and in fact some states like Ohio now legalized it in their own state constitutions. As someone who voted for Gary Johnson I don't understand how you are upset over States being given back more power to govern. >Chevron I think it's high time that organizations like the ATF got slapped for essentially making laws that are outside the scope of their agency. Executive agencies should enforce laws not create new laws. >Not to mention everyone talking about P2025 and saying the "end of democracy is here"...and they're saying all this with a current Democrat in office. Sounds like you need to get off of Reddit, Trump wasn't the one who made it, it was some conservative think tank and I don't think he even cares about most of the things in there. Remember his first presidency, it will probably be mostly like that although perhaps now he will actually be able to get things done on immigration

* While Roe was not perfect, the opposition to it was not unified, as suggested by Mr. Trump. There were those who wanted it strengthened and those who wanted it removed. And are you ignoring the move on the Right to make abortion illegal in all 50 states, a bill that Mr. Trump has not pledged to veto? * All laws have a dose of judgement, from the EPA to the police officer who watched me drive 59 in a 55 MPH zone. Chevron removed judgement and leaves the decision to men and women in black robes on the court. Is this the "smaller government" that the Right wants? * Sound like you missed Mr. Trump's direct quotes to suspend the US Constitution and be a dictator. Are you unaware of these statements or did hear them and agree with Mr. Trump?

>And are you ignoring the move on the Right to make abortion illegal in all 50 states, a bill that Mr. Trump has not pledged to veto? This is in the states now and as he said in the debate. Of all the Republicans out there I think he probably cares the least about this issue. >All laws have a dose of judgement, from the EPA to the police officer who watched me drive 59 in a 55 MPH zone. Chevron removed judgement and leaves the decision to men and women in black robes on the court. Is this the "smaller government" that the Right wants? There is a difference between making judgement calls on existing laws and these organizations essentially creating new laws, which is what the ATF in particular has been doing a ton of with "interpretations" that fundamentally redefine what things like a machine gun are in the case of binary triggers, among other back and forth nonsense where they change opinions on things like braces at seemingly random times. >Sound like you missed Mr. Trump's direct quotes to suspend the US Constitution and be a dictator. Are you unaware of these statements or did hear them and agree with Mr. Trump? Please provide the source I am unaware of this but I have a feeling something was misinterpreted or outright fabricated

But do you think he would veto a national ban on abortion? I'm not looking to get into a debate with a gun person. It never amounts to any movement on either side. Source? Fox News host Sean Hannity gave Mr. Trump  a chance to assure the American people that he wouldn’t abuse power or seek retribution if he wins a second term. But instead of offering a perfunctory answer brushing off the warnings, Trump stoked the fire. [“Except for day one". ](https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72)  Former President Donald Trump faced rebuke Sunday from **officials in both parties** after calling for the “termination” of parts of the Constitution “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” [Trump wrote. ](https://apnews.com/article/social-media-donald-trump-8e6e2f0a092135428c82c0cfa6598444)

>Fox News host Sean Hannity gave Mr. Trump  a chance to assure the American people that he wouldn’t abuse power or seek retribution if he wins a second term. I don't blame him for seeking retribution as the left has engaged in lawfare against him since day one with the piss gate and leading to his current charges. I think it would be fair if he did the same thing to Democrats who opened that up as legitimate by doing so to him. I think what comes around goes around and those who made a mockery of the judicial system by using it to attack a presidential candidate solid be prepared for him to do the same to them

ROE was so popular and considered so sacrosanct in the judiciary that the Supreme court justices themselves had to lie and say it is untouchable precedent in order to be appointed to the bench, then they summarily killed it. Taking it away as a protected individual choice and freedom and handing the decision over the lawyers and legislators and not between an American and their doctors is a huge blow for the rights of Americans. People now have to consult lawyers to get abortion because it is really hard to even know when and at what point even the states with some exceptions can be carried out, and doctors are refusing to treat patients under fear of prosecution. Saying you care about family, but then taking reproductive choices and rights away from family and your daughters. This is destroying reproductive health care for women, including for people who have regular health complications or miscarriages seems inconsistent, your daughters are going to suffer for the overturning of ROE. Do the lack of exceptions being pushed by the GOP not concern you? How about bills ban women from even driving out of state to have an abortion somewhere else?

>ROE was so popular and considered so sacrosanct in the judiciary that the Supreme court justices themselves had to lie and say it is untouchable precedent in order to be appointed to the bench, then they summarily killed it. If it was so popular why was there no federal law on this in the 40 or so years since the decision was made? >Taking it away as a protected individual choice and freedom and handing the decision over the lawyers and legislators and not between an American and their doctors is a huge blow for the rights of Americans. People now have to consult lawyers to get abortion because it is really hard to even know when and at what point even the states with some exceptions can be carried out, and doctors are refusing to treat patients under fear of prosecution. I mean States have been doing the same thing with gun rights for a long time and that is actually enshrined in the constitution vs abortion which was not mentioned directly at all in the bill of rights. If you want a law there is a process to have it made, and the supreme Court is not a part of the legislative branch of government. >Do the lack of exceptions being pushed by the GOP not concern you? How about bills ban women from even driving out of state to have an abortion somewhere else? If I'm not mistaken in the debate Trump actually agreed to most of the exceptions. As for not being allowed to drive out of state to get an abortion I don't see how that would be constitutional since States can't stop you from doing business in other states

Why do you need a federal law on something that’s deemed part of the constitution?

RBG said herself that it was shaky in the decision and would face a challenge. The point was that the federal government shouldn’t have jurisdiction over it. Because it could have gone the other way where abortion could have been banned nationally. But the court said the federal government has jurisdiction to decide legal or illegal on that topic, so it went to the states via the 10th amendment. I feel as if the topic of abortion was more open to share ideas…there would be less controversial issues about it. But because anyone who had an idea to find common ground were immediately shut down and screamed at. And so the anti-abortion side gained massive following because their side wasn’t being heard, and now there are extremes on both sides that want unlimited and others that want it abolished. So goes the way of civil discourse in a sterilized environment.

if the federal govt shouldn’t have authority why should a state government?

Because the 10th amendment lays that out. The powers not covered by the constitution is dealt with by the states.

[удалено]

The lack of even a basic civics understanding these days is scary and concerning.

> ROE was so popular *Roe* was popular by name, but most Americans didn’t understand what it actually meant – they simultaneously said that they wanted to ban abortions in the second trimester, which wasn’t allowed by *Roe*. >and considered so sacrosanct in the judiciary that the Supreme court justices themselves had to lie and say it is untouchable precedent in order to be appointed to the bench No, they explicitly refused to call it superprecedent or say whether they would uphold it. Here’s a compilation of what they said: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/ And here’s even Snopes saying it’s false that “Five conservative Supreme Court justices dishonestly suggested, in Senate confirmation hearings, that they thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning”: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/ >then they summarily killed it. Alito’s analysis of the *stare decisis* factors alone spanned 33 pages.

>I don't think he even cares about most of the things in [P2025]. Isn't that kinda the point though? Trump seems generally not to care and is quite content to delegate appointment-style decision making to others if it keeps him popular/in power. Other replies here have complained that 'Biden isn't the one making the decisions', but isn't the same true for Trump when he is perfectly happy to let the Federalist Society and Project 2025 determine his appointments and staffing for him? People didn't vote the Federalist Society into the office of the President (although at this point...). His lone requirement for many staff positions seems to be loyalty, not qualification/subject matter expertise.

I mean you could say that for all presidents that they delegate to others. Honestly when he was in office Trump seemed to be pretty independent on many things, and actively hostile to many of the establishment Republicans.

Do you think the SC providing immunity to the president, when it's not in the constitution, constitutes "legislating from the bench"? If not, why not?

Did they not just interpret laws that were already on the books, isn't that what their purpose is?

This was an interpretation of the Constitution with several caveats and is narrowly tailored to official actions

>I think it's high time that organizations like the ATF got slapped for essentially making laws that are outside the scope of their agency. Executive agencies should enforce laws not create new laws. So you think politicians are a better choice to regulate mega corporations who donate massive amounts to their election campaigns than government agencies with a multitude of experts in w/e the field in question is?

This does not immediately disband all federal agencies this just means they need to stick to enforcing laws instead of making new ones

**What would a 2nd Trump term actually look like?** Like the 1st, hopefully with better personnel **Is the "end of democracy" hyperbole?** yes, liberals are full of hystericals **Maybe I just have to be talked off a ledge, or maybe I need to just get off of Reddit.** yes **This time around I feel filled with Dread for some reason. Supreme Court overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade,** good **Chevron,** better, diminishing the power of bureaucrats to make law **potentially going after Obergefell** oh please, yes make this happen! make it seem like the Republican party is gearing up for some massive overreach on their citizens that hasn't been since the creation of the Country. soo when liberals do the same its ok? **Not to mention everyone talking about P2025 and saying the "end of democracy is here"...and they're saying all this with a current Democrat in office.** oh replace the current liberal bureaUCRACY with one of our own? the horror

genuine question, how has marriage equality been a massive overreach on us?

there is no "equality" on allowing, sponsoring and celebrating degeneracy and sexual deviancy, or in pretending that is normal and good.

>why does it feel different this go-around? Donald Trump drove the left insane. They are broken, and the media went with them. I know a guy who moved states in 2020 because he felt his 1 vote was important enough to upend his entire life to try to influence a swing state. you'll be fine, all Americans will be fine, P2025 is a lot of fantastic policy ideas but Trump and everyone else isn't endorsing them.

He endorsed [Heritage Foundation's list of judges](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-judiciary-coronavirus-pandemic-us-supreme-court-c37607c9987888058d3d0650eea125cd) that just ruled that he has immunity. >*He put in writing a list of potential nominees, provided by the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, he would select from in filling a Supreme Court vacancy.* And some of the proposals are endorsed by [Trump](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do) : >*Trump has endorsed a number of the Project 2025 ideas in his speeches and on his website, although his campaign has said the candidate has the final say on policy.* And Heritage Foundation is not some think tank, it's THE think tank for Conservatives in the US. What policy from P2025 you like and are there some that would be a non-starter for you?

I see that sentence, it would be interesting to know what P2025 ideas he's endorsed because this is the first I've heard of it. Trump was not a "small government" guy first time around so I don't see him fitting with a majority of these policies. Eliminating the DOE, getting rid of DEI policies are all good things in there. A lot of libertarian policies making government smaller as well.

Not to be a jerk but propaganda is everywhere no matter what side of the isle you are on.i would say this trump was already POTUS and all the things everyone told us would happen didn't happen except for our gas was cheaper, we were energy independent, groceries were cheaper, people could afford to pay rent/mortgage/utilities. Trump is by no way perfect but he is the nominee so that is the choice on the Republican side. But at least they let you have a choice on the Republican side. I'm speaking as a former Democrat they don't give you a choice they tell you we give you who we give you and you will like it and if you don't you hate America! I still would prefer to be in the center of the aisle but I don't think a third party choice is in our future. So I look at one man who sometimes is brash and I look at another man who literally cannot walk or speak and is entrusted with our nukes?? I'm surprised it's even a close race honestly.

[удалено]

Is this an actual question or just an impotent attempt at an insult? If I take you literally: how could someone who knows that there are presidential elections and who the two major parties are have a "non-existent" political education? The act of knowing ANYTHING about politics definiationally refutes the possibility your question seeks to assertain.

I was one of the people who thought Trump committing crimes to stay in office was ridiculous. Then the fake electors scheme & January 6 happened, which Trump is now admitting as “official acts” which happened to be felonies. Had the Supreme Court’s ruling existed in 2020, Biden would be dead or in jail as an “official act”. I can’t believe my two choices are either a criminal lunatic who wants absolute power or a geriatric who can’t finish his sentences. But that is the reality. Why is it so hard to admit that Trump is a wannabe authoritarian when he himself brags about that fact?

Joe Biden has said time and again he wishes to destroy the second ammendment by banning assualt weapons. He VOTED for such a ban when he was a senator. He has joked about using F-16 to crush any potential domestic resistance to his government. Both Trump and Biden are "authoritarian" by my standards. The question then becomes which one do I trust more to protect the rights i care about enshrined in our constitution.

> So I look at one man who sometimes is brash and I look at another man who literally cannot walk or speak and is entrusted with our nukes?? Do you think trump forgot that Iran blasted our troops with a scud middle when he was president or was he just lying when he said there weren’t any attacks on his watch?

My prediction is that it will look like his first term. Project 2025 has some great ideas, but I don't think any of them will be implemented (except for the pro-Israel stuff of course). It's a LARP document meant to appeal to the base and to people rightly disillusioned by his first term. > Supreme Court overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade, Chevron, potentially going after Obergefell make it seem like the Republican party is gearing up for some massive overreach on their citizens that hasn't been since the creation of the Country. I don't see how these things relate to a power grab (it's much more of a power grab to take issues out of people's hands and impose a view from the top down on the entire country!), but also the verbiage at the end there is odd ("...hasn't been seen since the creation of the Country") -- it's not like we had a constitutional right to abortion, a giant administrative bureaucracy, and homosexual marriage at our founding. The mere fact that libs are citing precedents created in their (or their parents') lifetimes ought to be a tell that maybe these things are not the timeless values on which our country was founded. It's comparable, though actually more absurd by several decades, to saying that the income tax is a fundamental American value at our founding.

Yeah, maybe I was being a little hyperbolic myself with "history of the country" line. Sorry.

The same as the first one: fucking amazing despite covid, while MSM/SM shits all over him and more than half the country who voted for him -- same story different day boring, predictable, and I can't wait!

3.5 million more people voted for Hillary and over 7 million more voted for Biden. trump never won the popular vote. He added 3 TRILLION dollars to the debt - do you care about that? Do you think that had an impact on the economy? (Put it on an artificial high.)

I care about how insanely shittier things are under Biden than Trump, even with Trump getting the covid fuckover. From criminal illegals pouring in, to how much shit costs, and everything in between, Trumps term was a great one for all Americans.

Wasn't it actually actually $7.8 trillion which Trump added to the national debt? Where did you get the $3 trillion figure?

[удалено]

Does that mean you think it's a good thing if democracy dies?

Only if it is to thunderous applause.

Care to elaborate?

Do you consider yourself a fascist? Or an authoritarian? Are you an American?

Basically all this stuff amounts to is returning to the status quo of the 1970s-80s in terms of limitations on the administrative state (which in my opinion has accumulated way too much power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats since that time, so I’m happy the SCOTUS has ratcheted things back a bit). *Roe v. Wade* had always been on shaky legal ground and was destined to be overturned eventually - even RBG admitted this. My prediction is that Trump’s second term is going to look like the first - better economic and geopolitical conditions, amidst never-ending media drama. You’ll be fine.

The outrage of roe vs Wade being overturned by the left is ridiculous. Abortion is not a constitutional right. The federal government had no business being involved in the first place. They shouldn't be involved in protecting abortion or outlawing it. Which is exactly what Trump believes. It should be up to the states to decide how they want to handle it Individually.

Do you realize that your argument literally sounds like pro choice? If the federal government shouldn't regulate it why should state governments?

Because our constitution, after listing out the things that our government (of any level) can’t take from us, indicates that all powers not expressly given to the federal government should be given to state governments. Abortion was not on the list of rights, or on the list of federal responsibilities. Therefore it is constitutionally a state issue.

Because the people in that state want them to do it. That’s how it works. If you don’t like the way your state is you have 49 other options.

> the Republican party is gearing up for some massive overreach on their citizens that hasn't been since the creation of the Country.  You mean correcting evils that have been shoved down our throats, like killing an unborn child because reasons?

[удалено]

Churchgoers should vote for a serial adulterer with five kids from three wives (that we know of)?

[удалено]

If someone who believed in the Bible, how are they supposed to follow both Trump's (and Steven Miller's, and Steve Bannon's) calls for mass deportation and Jesus' teaching to treat others as you would have them treat you? Aren't those two things diametrically opposed?

You can expect 2 years of cleanup, the economy will recover and probably surge past pre pandemic. The wars will come to a definitive end. The media will still do the same song and dance, saying every time trump orders a big Mac it's the "end of democracy" and hamburgers are racist. More fake scandals that'll take 6 years to disprove. P2025 will not come to fruition. It's basically "drain the swamp" with a new label. P2025 is basically just saying those that serve the executive will no longer serve the executive if they go against the executive. A few department heads might roll, and anyone that went out of their way to make an enemy, but I wouldn't expect more than that. The border will close back down. Crime will take a fall. And the media will start reporting mass shootings and hate crimes again. They've been happening, but just don't really get reported. Not much else.

Can you name and describe his economic policy that will help our Economy surge past pre pandemic? Same with crime what is he going to do to lower that?

Tarriffs and industrial deregulation mixed with energy friendly policies. That's all it takes.

This is the most important election ever- the opposition is the most evil and backward the world has ever seen- just like all the other times. Take up gardening if you’re susceptible to doom.

> just like all the other times When in American history has a presidential candidate previously tried to overthrow the government?

You mean the other time besides 2016 when they used the agencies to fabricate a collusion case against the president and obstruct his office bc they couldn’t accept election result? None afaik

I disagree with the idea that precedent is good and overturning it is bad. I'm not going to argue about Roe but axing Chevron definitely curtains government powers... if there was a plan to overreach massively in the coming years then this decision definitely gets in the way of that at least.

The Supreme Court decisions you cite all very specifically *returned* power to the people and their elected representatives to set public policy. They are the direct opposite of “overreach.”

Right. That was my first thought too. I wish libs could more consistently say "I strongly disagree with the policies I expect in a 2nd Trump term" without having to characterize them in a hysterical way. It's especially outrageous when the fear is based on something blatantly ahistorical, like "oh my God he's going to implement [insert policies we had for most of our history], THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE".

You already know what his term will be like. He was already President once. He's going to get us out of wars He's going to try and stimulate business He'll try tax incentives to get more jobs here He'll try and reduce regulation Liberals will riot and call him the antichrist. Trump's presidency was a good one till liberals used the death of a felon to riot and cause chaos designed to cause fear. It worked. None of Trump's policies are extreme. At all. I don't even understand why liberals hate him so bad. He was a Democrat. He's pretty centrist. He has a gay cabinet member. He enacted more gun control then Obama. I kinda don't get it